gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 20, 2013 23:32:19 GMT 5
Ignore that comparison, it is inaccurate in virtually every regard. I don't remember who made it, and cannot imagine bonecrusher would accept a 14m Giganotosaurus, which he argued firecely against. In any case, the only lenghts that are not exagerated are Acrocanthosaurus (this one's even undersized), Carcharodontosaurus (but the holotype was not even near this big) and possibly Giganotosaurus (tough this is the upper bound figure). Even 18m Spinosaurus and 12m Suchomimus is possible. Anywhere, Tyrannosaurus ("Sue" and UCMP) were the only dinosaurs with a length figure out of the currently upper estimate. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 20, 2013 23:34:34 GMT 5
Their weights are bullshit however.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 20, 2013 23:45:24 GMT 5
Ignore that comparison, it is inaccurate in virtually every regard. I don't remember who made it, and cannot imagine bonecrusher would accept a 14m Giganotosaurus, which he argued firecely against. In any case, the only lenghts that are not exagerated are Acrocanthosaurus (this one's even undersized), Carcharodontosaurus (but the holotype was not even near this big) and possibly Giganotosaurus (tough this is the upper bound figure). Even 18m Spinosaurus and 12m Suchomimus is possible. Anywhere, Tyrannosaurus ("Sue" and UCMP) were the only dinosaurs with a length figure out of the currently upper estimate. 14,7m Mapusaurus too, tough he more than makes up for that by the lenght of the other animals and the extremely slender skeletal that makes it look incredibly whimpy... Apart from that, yeah, T. rex is the msot overestimated here. 12m Suchomimus and 18m spinosaurus are liberal, but certainly possible. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 20, 2013 23:46:51 GMT 5
What is the 12 m Suchomimus based on? Is it based on the assumption of the 11 m one being a juvenile?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 20, 2013 23:50:01 GMT 5
Hartman's skeletal is longer than 11m
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Jun 21, 2013 14:57:30 GMT 5
Apart from that, yeah, T. rex is the msot overestimated here. 12m Suchomimus and 18m spinosaurus are liberal, but certainly possible. 12 m for Suchoimimus is pretty possible, but 18 m (and 16+ tonnes) would be doubtful. If scientists like Farlow said that even 5-7 ton Tyrannosaurus would be fatal injured after falling while fast moving due great mass. For 14-16 ton Spinosaurus the falling would be even more dangerous. I know people would defend Spinosaurus due arms, but i doubt they could reduce the impact. I don't trust in Tyrannosaur-ish 12.5 m in length and 1.5 m skull too. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 15:52:33 GMT 5
^But Spinosaurus was semi-aquatic. This is not a fight scenario, from an ecological perspective, falling would pose no great problem since it probably was no fast moving terrestrial predator.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 21, 2013 16:11:04 GMT 5
Well, if it for sure spent some time on the dry land. Of course it being semi aquatic is a factor that should be taken into account, but 16 t+ is really a lot.
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Jun 21, 2013 16:20:35 GMT 5
But it doesn't mean that 18 m and 16 tonnes is relatively reliable. This animal would need a lot of meat. 8 m fish were still probably rare, even if they might be more common than today. Although there were plesiosaurs (that resting on the beach)and turtles for example. However Spinosaurus would have big rival Aegisuchus, an possible giant crocodylomorph. Link: www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030471 |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 17:03:21 GMT 5
^I didn't say that. It is just possible, not more, and I can think of more likely sizes (imo 16-17m in axial lenght is most likely)
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jun 21, 2013 18:55:18 GMT 5
Spinosaurus is probably close to the maximum limit for the bipeds, and had a hump on his back, which made it heavier. So, I think 10-14 tons sounds quite reasonable. The estimate of 16 tons or more is possible only if Spinosaurus had short legs proposals by Andrea Cau.  This would make Spinosaurus a quadruped, which would support better a mass of 16 + tons. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 19:28:39 GMT 5
^Theropod manus are not built to support weight, they cannot even be pronated or turned so that they face forward. I highly doubt Spinosaurus would be the one exception. The model doesn't support the idea of it being a quadruped, it is obviously in bipedal stance, tought he legs are very short compared to the arms. There are also Allosaurus specimens (eg DINO 25xx) whose arms nearly reach the ground, yet they are by no means quadrupeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 21, 2013 19:47:12 GMT 5
The estimate of 16 tons or more is possible only if Spinosaurus had short legs proposals by Andrea Cau. Remember that Cau's Spinosaurus is a lot smaller than 16 t. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 21, 2013 19:52:01 GMT 5
^Cau's Spinosaurus as indicated in his Blog posts is downright tiny, but despite his extremely conservative view that estimate was jsut a demonstration. But the model supposedly supervised by cau was reported to be 16m long, so it isn't that small and fits Dal Sasso's range nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 21, 2013 19:55:06 GMT 5
A 16 m Spinosaurus still would be a lot lighter than 16 t.
|
|
